 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hancock9/21/2000
(2) serve to protect the public from further criminal conduct by the offender; and (3) are congruent with general principles of sentencing. State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456, 461 (Tenn. 1999); State v.. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933, 939 (Tenn. 1995). In this case, the court found that, given the circumstances of the offense, "to give [the defendant] anything less than [the sentence imposed] would be a travesty." The court also found that, based on the defendant's record, confinement was necessary to protect the public, because "[the defendant] has absolutely no intent to obey the laws at all." We agree. It is apparent that this is a particularly egregious vehicular homicide caused by the defendant's incredibly irresponsible actions. Moreover, it appears that despite numerous encounters with the criminal justice system the defendant has continued to engage in behavior that puts innocent people at great risk. Clearly, consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from the defendant's conduct. We find that the trial court did not err in ordering consecutive sentences. This issue is without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
|